guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Gem/Archive18
__NOEDITSECTION__ Build archiving Seeing as the builds section wipe will be going off tomorrow, is it a problem if I archive one of my own builds by simply moving the page to my userspace (and removing category links and all that)? I really don't see a need to keep the original build page there, having it missing from the wiki the day before it gets wiped doesn't seem like a problem. And I'd like to keep the original history of the page intact, and moving it seems to be the best way to do so. The build's A/any Critical Fox, in case you were wondering... having an answer before tomorrow would be preferable, if at all possible. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'''ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 11:48, 30 April 2007 (CDT) :Be bold in editing — Skuld 12:15, 30 April 2007 (CDT) :Imho go ahead. I would only be conserned if the build was one of the most popular ones in the game. I'll probably save a couple of builds to my user name space in the same manner too, but I've got the admin tools so I can undelete them after the wipe so that I can then move them. -- (gem / talk) 12:21, 30 April 2007 (CDT) ::Hehe, WP:BOLD is something I'll have to keep in mind more... I think I worry too much about being reckless, though. ::Anyway, I didn't think there would be a problem, but I always like to check. I'll probably move the page over a little later. First off, I'm busy trying to figure out how to use a Show/Hide box on another wiki... I can't tell what I'm doing wrong, but I think I know what I'm doing. Should keep me busy for the rest of the day. ::A quick question on that subject; I was trying to figure out how to make a Show/Hide box be hidden by default, but I couldn't get anything... what I stumbled upon was that having more then one Show/Hide box seemed to make a difference. Is there any other way to set this default? --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 12:33, 30 April 2007 (CDT) :::No clue. -- (gem / talk) 12:34, 30 April 2007 (CDT) ::::Ah well. Makes no difference to me anyway, at this point; I thought it might be good to check, and I copy+pasted your "useful links" coding over to my userpage on the other Wiki, just to see if it worked (figured pasting code that I knew worked would be the best way to check). A quick press of "Show Preview" proved that, apparently, they use an older version of MetaWiki, because it didn't work... --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 12:38, 30 April 2007 (CDT) ::::Back to the original subject, I need to delete my original backup to make room for the the original page. I added a delete tag, I'll be able to move the page over once that's deleted. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 12:45, 30 April 2007 (CDT) :::::Deleted. -- (gem / talk) 13:10, 30 April 2007 (CDT) ::::::Thanks a bunch. I've got it all copied over now. (and I was able to archive the talk page in the process, it was getting long.) --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 16:58, 30 April 2007 (CDT) :::::::Sorry I didn't see this until now, but no, simply moving a build is not a good idea for a ton of reasons. Firstly, though, the point of the wipe is to remove all the builds; if 90% of builds were moved out of the Builds: namespace, what would the point of the wipe be? Secondly, we haven't allowed ''anybody to move builds so far (including authors), so saying "sure it's okay" at this point would be hypocritical. You can steal the build from someone's archive, Jioruji, but the original is going back to the Build: namespace. -Auron 04:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Auron, but that's what happened. A lot of people loved the Wiki for the builds, and now each build has 2 or 3 copies in various User namespaces. IMHO it has made a bigger mess... With or without history is not a big difference. — Poki#3 , 08:52, 1 May 2007 (CDT) :I can understand your point, Auron, but realize that my archiving the build page is not just a way to "dodge" the build wipe here. Either way, I'm allowed to save the build to my userspace, correct? By moving this build, as far as I can see, I just save trouble; I don't have to completely re-write the build article in my userspace, I don't need to copy and paste the entire history for crediting purposes, and the redirect page that's created when I move it is wiped as normal. If the userspace copy I've moved is that big of a deal, then it can be deleted; but on that note, seeing as I plan to save this particular build either way, I would just re-create the same exact page in my userspace. The only thing deleting would do is give more work, both for the person who deletes it, and for myself, who would need to re-make the whole page. :Was their a particular reason that I missed that makes moving such a bad idea, as opposed to re-writing entirely? I'm not trying to argue here, I just want to straighten out this point. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'''ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 12:59, 1 May 2007 (CDT) ::If there's any way this could get cleared up before the wipe, that would be just awesome. Keeping the original build history would be a great boon, for me. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 13:51, 1 May 2007 (CDT) :::If you move a build before the wipe, our pre-wipe backup will lack that build. It's not a good thing. —Tanaric 13:56, 1 May 2007 (CDT) ::::Then do I have any other options to preserve the history just as it is? Moving seems to be the simplest way to do this, but as you say, that would affect the wipe process itself. The build has a full copy on PvXwiki as well, with history intact; can the method they used to copy it be used in reverse? And is it an easy method? --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 14:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT) ::::Just to note, I have a working backup at the moment, so there's no big hurry here. Either way, if there's a way to copy a page's history, I'd like to know it. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 14:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT) :::::The only way to import with history is to do so from a database dump. Such dumps are available from my user page – however, to import them into a wiki, you require sysop access. I'm aware of no method to copy an article on a wiki complete with contribution history. —Tanaric 14:27, 1 May 2007 (CDT) My userpage =O! Hi Gem xD, I have used and credited your javascript boxes at the bottom of my userpage, but theres something wrong with the code that makes the bottom boxes look fatsojmbo >.>, could you help? (t- ) 14:38, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Nevermind, Ive found the problem, thanks anyways. (t- ) 15:33, 2 May 2007 (CDT) :Once again, Gem fixes a problem without ever even doing anything. I would do anything for your abilities, Gem... --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>']] 15:59, 2 May 2007 (CDT) ::Well, I opened the problem page, made a small edit to the code, didn't figure out the problem immediately, logged into GW for 'a while' and forgot about it. :D -- (gem / talk) 16:01, 2 May 2007 (CDT) :::Aha! That's your secret! You log into GW for "a while", and things magically start getting fixed. That would explain why my problems remain unresolved... I haven't been playing GW much lately. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'ioruji '''D'erako.>''']] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (CDT) ::::Yeah, alt-tabbing from the wiki to GW really often solves all problems. I can't explain it, but it must have something to do with something... something... I dont know. ;) -- (gem / talk) 16:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT) Image copyright problem Thank you for uploading the files listed below. GuildWiki takes copyright very seriously, and the images you have supplied are missing information on its copyright status. The images will be deleted after 7 days, unless the copyright status is determined for the '''license and the source of the images. Please review Project:Image use policy and add a copyright tag to their image description page. Thank you for your cooperation. The following is a list of files that need attention: *Image:User Gem SW user box.jpg 84.13.251.42 07:03, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :I have replied on the image talk page. This image is fair use. -- (gem / talk) 07:27, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :I just checked your contribs and I must say that although many of the tagged images might be correctly tagged, there are also ones that shouldn't have been tagged. I'm not going to go against you on the images of other users, but I have to say that I don't like your attitude. -- (gem / talk) 07:28, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::The image is NOT fair use - fair use rationale does not include the prettification of your user page. Every image that I have tagged is tagged correctly. Copyright and licensing issues don't go away just because you don't like them, and Guild Wiki has not been elevated above the laws that apply to the rest of the world. As for your liking my attitude or not, I don't believe that those sort of comments are what is expected from a sys op. 84.13.251.42 07:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::What does my sysop status have to do with this? Nothing, so please don't even start with that. :::As far as I have been able to draw conclusions from other wikis and websites, images can be used for these kinds of purposes under fair use. You could go close down half the internet if it wasn't so. -- (gem / talk) 08:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::::What the rest of "the internet" does - unlawfully - should not be of any concern to you nor anyone else here who wants to maintain standards and operate professionally. The comment about your sys op status follows this line of reaoning - I am merely carrying out necessary maintenance, as outlined in Project:Image attribution project. Sys ops are colloquially referred to as "users with a mop and bucket" - rather than attempting to find get out clauses you should be constructively engaging with the project. 84.13.251.42 08:06, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::::No, I don't have any bindings to help any single project in the wiki. I'm allowed to help, but I am not forced to. I am also allowed to have a different opinnion. Although I agree that images should be tagged properly, you shouldn't be just tagging a million images and putting generic templates on peoples user pages when there is nothing anywhere which would advice users on how to act. I'm not againts the project, I'm against the method that you use and your attitude. -- (gem / talk) 08:11, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::::::Every time an image is uploaded a very large piece of text appears:DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! By submitting, you promise that you wrote the edit yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. That is pretty clear advice on how to act, I figure. 84.13.251.42 08:16, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::::::You just don't get it. When you start a wiki-wide campaign, start it by planning. Then create the necessary templates and other pages and make sure there is some place which explains all users, even those unaware of the situation, what is going on and how they should act. You did none of those three before starting to tag images. -- (gem / talk) 08:21, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::::::::And may I add, that the policy doesn't say anything about the tags yet? I don't think there needed at all. Well over 95% of the images are GW screenshots, and forcing people to find a licence for each image will just scare people off the wiki (like Wikipedia did to me), and that's not why it was made. The other images are mostly okay, and the single few that (potentially) violate copyright can me solved on talk pages :/ — Poki#3 , 08:50, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::::::::This has been discussed at User talk:84.13.251.42. -- (gem / talk) 08:52, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :Then please just wake we up when this thing dies. — Poki#3 , 08:57, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::::::::::Choosing whether to obey the pertinent laws and the conditions under which GuildWiki is licensed are not open for policy discussion or debate. They are the conditions agreed to from day 1 of operating the wiki. The wiki was not made to be a repository for unlicensed and/or copyrighted images either. Screenshots are fine - there is an agreement and conditions in place with ANet for these to be used. It is the usercruft that is the problem. As for "single few (potentially)".... I would estimate they run into several hundred, easily. An image cannot be "mostly okay" - it is free for use or it is not. I would enjoy watching you argue that case in a court of law. If you wish to ignore it, why bother commenting in the first place? 84.13.251.42 08:58, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::::::::::::What the hell are you trying to tell me? I'm not 'choosing whether to obey the pertinent laws and the conditions under which GuildWiki is licensed'. I'm arguing against your method of enforcing this matter. Your method was crappy. Period. -- (gem / talk) 09:00, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::::::::::::The reply was to User:Poki. FYI I'm not interested in PoVs. 84.13.251.42 09:05, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::::::::::::::Sorry. :) -- (gem / talk) 09:11, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :(reseting) Thank you Gem. That is the way to express how I feel :P. And Anon, I don't want to get involved much in this discussion, since I didn't study law, nor to I live in the US and have an idea about your law. I'm just trying to say, that tagging every single image is very much unnecessary. The have a clear license without any tag and the rest can be solved calmly and easily if we don't start to get ignorant. End of the discussion for me. — Poki#3 , 09:20, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::What license?? Example, Image:LaRes.jpg Where is the license information?? The only information appertaining to that image is what the copyright holder says about it. And, FYI, this is what they say: The contents of this Site, including all Site software, design, text, images, photographs, illustrations, audio and video material, artwork, graphic material, databases, proprietary information and all copyrightable or otherwise legally protectible elements of the Site, including, without limitation, the selection, sequence and 'look and feel' and arrangement of items, and all trademarks, service marks and trade names (individually and/or collectively, "Material"), are the property of Comedy Partners, and its Parent Companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, licensors, suppliers, operational service providers, advertisers, promotional partners, or sponsors and are legally protected, without limitation, under U.S. Federal and State, as well as applicable foreign laws, regulations and treaties. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise or we explicitly say so in writing, the term "Site" includes "Material" as well. The Site is to be used solely for your noncommercial, non-exclusive, non-assignable, non- transferable and limited personal use and for no other purposes. You must not alter, delete or conceal any copyright or other notices contained on the Site, including notices on any Material you download, transmit, display, print or reproduce from the Site. You shall not, nor will you allow any third party (whether or not for your benefit) to reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, display, perform, publish, distribute, disseminate, broadcast or circulate to any third party (including, without limitation, on or via a third party web site), or otherwise use, any Material without the express prior written consent of Comedy Partners or its owner if Comedy Partners is not the owner. Any unauthorized or prohibited use of any Material may subject you to civil liability, criminal prosecution, or both, under applicable federal, state and local laws. We require users to respect our copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights. We likewise respect the intellectual property of others. On notice, we will act expeditiously to remove content on the Site that infringes the copyright rights of others and will disable the access to the Site and its services of anyone who uses them to repeatedly to infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Pretty straightforward, really. 89.241.239.102 09:56, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :To me, that looks like "fair use" or however do you call it. He uses that picture for personal, non-commercial, non-profit use and isn't hurting anybody. He just expresses that he likes the show and as such, promotes the show! Why aren't you bashing Wikipedia for this image? It's the same character. — Poki#3 , 10:33, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::Because it is irrelavent, probably. — Skuld 10:35, 3 May 2007 (CDT) ::Because that one is tagged correctly, this one isn't. -- (gem / talk) 11:58, 3 May 2007 (CDT) :::Not quite, Gem. The image on Wikipedia is being used in a (more-or-less) scholarly context, to illustrate a character being discussed. It is only linked from the Eric Cartman article. That's fair use, and that's what the fair use mentality protects -- using a copyrighted image for identification in relevant works. Fair use is designed to make it impossible to prevent people from talking about your product. :::Even on Wikipedia, if a user included that Cartman image on his own userpage, it would be removed. While it's fair use in the Eric Cartman article, it's not fair use on a user page. Here, because we document Guild Wars and Eric Cartman is never relevant, we'll delete the image straight-off. :::If you want to blame anybody for this, blame me, but blame me only for not making this an issue from the very beginning. As the anon has correctly pointed out, we've been considerably lax in our compliance with copyright law, and I started the image attribution project to address this. :::—Tanaric 09:13, 4 May 2007 (CDT) ::::I'm not blaiming anyone for this issue being taken care of, I'm blaming the anon for going on rampage without a plan and the necessary templates and articles. ::::"Fair use is designed to make it impossible to prevent people from talking about your product." Exactly. A user box stating my views of Eric Cartman would be commenting the copyrighted material which is allowed fair use for an image of him. -- (gem / talk) 09:33, 4 May 2007 (CDT) :::::You are perfectly entitled to feel that way, Gem, and in many ways justified. However, this approach has ensured that actions are being taken promptly and the situation is being viewed as a serious and pressing issue. A little disruption creating templates for 24 hours is, you must agree, a far better situation than attorneys arriving waving writs and injunctions. You may not thank me for this, but yoou should thank Tanaric who has expeditiously corrected the earlier oversight. 89.240.253.167 09:44, 4 May 2007 (CDT) ::::::Additionally, there's no point in blaming our anonymous friend. He merely tagged some images with copyvio. I'm the one who decided he had a point, deleted the image, and began pushing for this via the image attribution project (and he has graciously shifted his efforts to coincide with my own, which I greatly appreciate). You can talk about Cartman (or Han Solo, or any of these characters) without the image. The image doesn't help your case. Wikipedia is attempting to document Cartman and Han Solo. It's a totally different playing field. ::::::In any case, this really isn't an arguable point. In the end, this boils down to being my and LordBiro's responsibility, and I believe we're in agreement that we must be strict in cases where there's any ambiguity. That Wikipedia takes this same stance (and additionally prohibits the sort of imagery you're advocating) suggests that we're correct. As we're both not lawyers, that's the best we can do. ::::::—Tanaric 11:10, 4 May 2007 (CDT) Reminders to self *Subst all sigs that still include User:Gem/Sig. *You have many builds backed up at User:Gem/save. Need to dig up authors for the builds before restoring. -- (gem / talk) 06:13, 8 May 2007 (CDT) :Ahaha, way to totally abuse sysop privileges. I love it. :) —Tanaric 09:15, 8 May 2007 (CDT) ::So evil and so fun. This was partially an accident though as I allready had that page up before the whole copyvio mess, but then I came up with this nice plan. ::Btw, the main name space still has some build talk pages and build talk page archives which haven't been moved to the build name space originally. I've deleted any that I found, but I guess there must be more. -- (gem / talk) 09:22, 8 May 2007 (CDT) :::I don't mind leaving talk pages around – they cause no harm and are sometimes fun to browse – but I have no objections to deleting them either. I'm just not going to hunt them down myself. :) —Tanaric 08:21, 9 May 2007 (CDT) ban 69.65.78.121 has been vandalizing userpages. He apparently likes to replace pages with "I'm gay" and the likes.— [[User:Cheese Slaya|'Cheese Slaya']] (Talk) 21:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT) :He seems to have only targeted one user; both userpages belong to the same target. Apparently, he reverted one of his own vandalizations as well. --image:GEO-logo.png [[user:Jioruji Derako|'J'''ioruji '''D'erako.>]] 21:14, 25 May 2007 (CDT) ::I blocked him for a day anyway. —Tanaric 21:23, 25 May 2007 (CDT)